Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Argument that I don't think Atheists should use

Posted on: July 9, 2011 - 11:21pm

Weston Bortner

Posts: 56

Joined: 2011-06-12

Offline

Argument that I don't think Atheists should use

When dealing with the arguments of apologists and other fundamentalists, one often feels the urge to appeal to the tragedies that religion has caused. They'll point to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holy Ways, and the Witch Hunts and say "See! Look at what you've done!"

Ever since, theists have replied with "Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc, were all atheists! And they killed many more people than we did!" They'll point to Hitler being a big fan of Nietzsche and Social Darwinism, etc. Now, whether or not you actually believe that Hitler was an atheist (which is very questionable since Hitler spoke out against atheism), you should note the problem with this argument.

It's completely irrelevant.

I don't understand why atheists and theists spend so much time reminding them of all the things that were evil in the Bible or what horrible thing a secular community did. Any attempts to call religion or atheism bad because of the negative actions (death, discrimination, poverty, etc) is simply an appeal to the consequences. It's irrelevant. It doesn't matter that atheism might lead to deaths. It doesn't matter that Christianity might lead to holy wars. Well...it does matter, but it doesn't when you're arguing about whether or not the belief is true. So, until Christianity can be proven without a shadow of a doubt, I don't see the relevance in arguing about how useful it is.

Like Sam Harris said:

"There are three ways to argue about faith. 1) Argue that your religion is true, 2) Argue that your religion is useful, or 3) Argue that atheism is bad. Only 1 is valid."

It doesn't matter before we go anywhere, we should be deciding on whether or not Jesus can be verified. We have people like David Marshall who is going around saying that the New Testament isn't evil and that it is true. http://christthetao.homestead.com/articles.html

But, that's not important. It doesn't matter. We need to verify that it's true first. Something that hasn't been done without argumentation for decades.

Our job on this Earth, is to take care of each other. Something that we have ultimately failed at doing, hence why we are so miserable.

I agree we need to determine whether religion is true, not what it does.

The cause and effect arguments of religion [Religion influenced Martin Luther King! It influenced Osama Bin Laden!] are shakey at best, and either side's arguments could be switched to support the opposite side [Bin Laden quoted holy texts. So did MLK].

However, when dealing with the truth value of religion, we atheists have much much stronger foothold.

First theists would have to prove their god exists, before they can say he inspired people.

When dealing with the arguments of apologists and other fundamentalists, one often feels the urge to appeal to the tragedies that religion has caused. They'll point to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holy Ways, and the Witch Hunts and say "See! Look at what you've done!"

...

If you are interested in getting debating points together then it is good to start with a good understanding of the other side the chances of coming across targets for preconceived arguments are slim to none. Only if you stick to doctrinal purists like the Roman Catholics is it worth preparing arguments. Generally Christians get their ideas form a smorgabord of ideas, picking what they like and rarely caring to understand of them. There is way to much. It is inconsistent and often incoherent and filled with mutually exclusive ideas. And people will hold mutally exclusive ideas as true.

If you are trying to get your own thoughts together that is something else entirely.

While disposing of certain assumptions or approaches is necessary at times it takes many years to come across them all and answers for them.

Rather the proper starting point is never start off with the assumption the believers have a position of merit. Make them establish every assertion. Pursued rigorously you can quickly expose the believer as having no position at all. No matter what they assertion, who told you that and why did you believe him? That same question goes all the way back.

Never accept a distraction and be warned believers have millions of them. One distraction is to elicite and alternate explanation from you and then debate the validity of your alternative.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

When dealing with the arguments of apologists and other fundamentalists, one often feels the urge to appeal to the tragedies that religion has caused. They'll point to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holy Ways, and the Witch Hunts and say "See! Look at what you've done!"

Ever since, theists have replied with "Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc, were all atheists! And they killed many more people than we did!" They'll point to Hitler being a big fan of Nietzsche and Social Darwinism, etc. Now, whether or not you actually believe that Hitler was an atheist (which is very questionable since Hitler spoke out against atheism), you should note the problem with this argument.

It's completely irrelevant.

I don't understand why atheists and theists spend so much time reminding them of all the things that were evil in the Bible or what horrible thing a secular community did. Any attempts to call religion or atheism bad because of the negative actions (death, discrimination, poverty, etc) is simply an appeal to the consequences. It's irrelevant. It doesn't matter that atheism might lead to deaths. It doesn't matter that Christianity might lead to holy wars. Well...it does matter, but it doesn't when you're arguing about whether or not the belief is true. So, until Christianity can be proven without a shadow of a doubt, I don't see the relevance in arguing about how useful it is.

Like Sam Harris said:

"There are three ways to argue about faith. 1) Argue that your religion is true, 2) Argue that your religion is useful, or 3) Argue that atheism is bad. Only 1 is valid."

It doesn't matter before we go anywhere, we should be deciding on whether or not Jesus can be verified. We have people like David Marshall who is going around saying that the New Testament isn't evil and that it is true. http://christthetao.homestead.com/articles.html

But, that's not important. It doesn't matter. We need to verify that it's true first. Something that hasn't been done without argumentation for decades.

I think it IS perfectly lagit to bring up the historical bloodshed in the name of gods. I don't think it should be the only arrow in the arsenal. But it does show that religion is nothing more than a tribal gang no different than the Bloods vs Kripts.

I think the most important thing to attack is the fact that NO ONE of any label, past or present, monotheistic or polytheistic has ever demonstrated how a thought can arise out of a non material process considering their fictional super heros are invisible and non material.

But regarding the bible, theists are famous for shouting "out of context" so that they can distance the NT from the OT, but this is negated by the return to violence and genocide in the book of revelations.

Here is the plot of the bible in 3 parts.

1.Be a good Hebrew and no one gets hurt.

2. Thats not working, I'll clone myself and fake my own death and promise them I wont beat them any more.

3. Remember when I said I wouldn't beat you any more, I lied.

The bible is an immoral gang manual no matter how you slice it and IT DOES need to be put under the light of scrutiny precisely because people will use holy books to justify the harm of others to protect their gang.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

When dealing with the arguments of apologists and other fundamentalists, one often feels the urge to appeal to the tragedies that religion has caused. They'll point to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holy Ways, and the Witch Hunts and say "See! Look at what you've done!"

Ever since, theists have replied with "Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc, were all atheists! And they killed many more people than we did!" They'll point to Hitler being a big fan of Nietzsche and Social Darwinism, etc. Now, whether or not you actually believe that Hitler was an atheist (which is very questionable since Hitler spoke out against atheism), you should note the problem with this argument.

It's completely irrelevant.

I don't understand why atheists and theists spend so much time reminding them of all the things that were evil in the Bible or what horrible thing a secular community did. Any attempts to call religion or atheism bad because of the negative actions (death, discrimination, poverty, etc) is simply an appeal to the consequences. It's irrelevant. It doesn't matter that atheism might lead to deaths. It doesn't matter that Christianity might lead to holy wars. Well...it does matter, but it doesn't when you're arguing about whether or not the belief is true. So, until Christianity can be proven without a shadow of a doubt, I don't see the relevance in arguing about how useful it is.

Like Sam Harris said:

"There are three ways to argue about faith. 1) Argue that your religion is true, 2) Argue that your religion is useful, or 3) Argue that atheism is bad. Only 1 is valid."

It doesn't matter before we go anywhere, we should be deciding on whether or not Jesus can be verified. We have people like David Marshall who is going around saying that the New Testament isn't evil and that it is true. http://christthetao.homestead.com/articles.html

But, that's not important. It doesn't matter. We need to verify that it's true first. Something that hasn't been done without argumentation for decades.

I think it IS perfectly lagit to bring up the historical bloodshed in the name of gods. I don't think it should be the only arrow in the arsenal. But it does show that religion is nothing more than a tribal gang no different than the Bloods vs Kripts.

I think the most important thing to attack is the fact that NO ONE of any label, past or present, monotheistic or polytheistic has ever demonstrated how a thought can arise out of a non material process considering their fictional super heros are invisible and non material.

But regarding the bible, theists are famous for shouting "out of context" so that they can distance the NT from the OT, but this is negated by the return to violence and genocide in the book of revelations.

Here is the plot of the bible in 3 parts.

1.Be a good Hebrew and no one gets hurt.

2. Thats not working, I'll clone myself and fake my own death and promise them I wont beat them any more.

3. Remember when I said I wouldn't beat you any more, I lied.

The bible is an immoral gang manual no matter how you slice it and IT DOES need to be put under the light of scrutiny precisely because people will use holy books to justify the harm of others to protect their gang.

I agree, generally. If a group of people, and not just one hysterical nutjob, go on a spree of genocide, torturing innocents, rape, and war simply because of a tenuous line of text in a book, it needs to be pointed out -not to the religious themselves, because they will simply dismiss it as irrelevant to their sect, or claim there is little point in dwelling the past, but to newer and less-informed generations of the populace who aren't aware of what kind of blood a religion has on it's hands. At least one particularly bloody religion will claim to be "pro-life" and that they are "defenders of the unborn". Funny, considering between 500-1000 years ago their predecessors were pre-occupied with torturing confessions out of suspected werewolves, vampires, and witches before executing them.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Interesting points made, arguing from emotional baggage, while making a point against an objective moral frame of reference is sending mixed signals, and doesn't show a lot of focus. The only time I bring up the relative evils derived from bible is to point out how loosely religious texts can be interpreted. It is not so much to say that religion is evil, but rather unfocused. By pointing out that atheists can be evil is missing the point in the sense that atheism is not an inspiration for an ideology. Atheism is simply stating the irrationality of religion.

It's important to point out that atheists share that one fact in common. They are not buying the BS religion is trying to sell, past that we have no common ground.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

The fact many religions enshrine and promote beliefs that directly threaten these articles in the UN's Human Rights Charter...I think I see what the OP means but I certainly think religion is at least in part, a hate crime that dehumanises people.

Could a secular 'spiritual' movement be formed which is based on the teachings of a book that calls for the death of the genetically weak, the murder of those who disagree, the 'immorality' of not subscribing to SciAm? Obviously not.

But religions can and do promote comparable views to kids of 4 or 5 whose minds are completely vulnerable. I believe monotheism demeans non believers relentlessly by statement and implication.

Some of these articles relate to islam more directly, others to christianity and islam.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

I think Article 30 is the key. Adherence to Article 30 preserves the rights of all others to equal treatment - what Article 30 enshrines here is the Golden Rule.

Christianity and islam ruthlessly seek to breach Article 30 both materially and metaphysically.

Until the offending passages and teachings are excised from their doctrines I will always oppose them with hostility.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Eh, it does not affect whether or not they are true, but it still matters in the sense that we should talk about it.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

Bringing up this conection does not have universal merit. It is only the so-called abramic religions that have used religion as a cause for war. In many years of looking I have found no case of a priest of any other religion or god calling for war nor have I come across any reference to it.

The nearest I have found was one king of Egypt saying he had a dream of a god telling him to extend Egypt's influence in the eastern Med and thus founding the New Kingdom period. Now the king was also technically the highest religious authority in the sense the Elizabeth II is head of the Church of England but it was not a mandate to spread the gods of Egypt to other lands.

While religion == bloodshed may play in the west it is not a universal characteristic of religion.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

I have yet to see a credible argument to suggest any atheist has been a mass murderer and that such murder was done because the person was an atheist. The same is not true for religious groups. Due to that fact, it is very relevant.

2. Thats not working, I'll clone myself and fake my own death and promise them I wont beat them any more.

3. Remember when I said I wouldn't beat you any more, I lied.

I am famous for cutting to the chase. It does sound like a joke, but I am dead serious. THAT IS THE PLOT OF THE BIBLE.

This god demands you to conform to the club. Not to mention that the game is rigged and no matter what you do you either kiss his ass or get tortured forever.

Threats and bribes are the morality of the bible offered by a character who is the same psychology as an abusive spouse.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37